In his more recent work (like Escape from Rome form 2019) he admits that Rome's empire was decentralized and was unlike Ancient Chinese states. I took from this book the fact that China was militarily unified 17 times.
To have an idea of how decentralized Rome's empire was, Plutarch said that Roman tax revenues were 85 million denarii per year in the mid 1st century BC, which works out at 12,750 talents of silver per year. For comparison the tax revenues of Egypt alone at the time, a more centralized state, were said to be 12,500 talents per year. Egypt's population is estimated to have been about 10 times smaller than of Rome's empire, so the per capita tax revenues that Rome extracted from her empire were 10 times smaller than Egypt's.
Compared to a wealthy city-state Roman tax revenues were a joke: consider that Athenian tax revenues in ca. 300 BC were estimated at 1,200 talents of silver, equivaled to about 9-10% of Roman tax revenues 250 years later and Athens had a population equivalent to 0.3 to 0.4% of Rome's empire. So, its tax revenues per capita were around 30 times higher.
During the Early Roman Empire, the city of Athens still functioned as an independent city-state and it continued to have its own constitution and citizenship. They even had mandatory military service for 18-year-olds (even though they haven't fought a war in centuries). This book is a good survey of Athenian history under Roman hegemony: https://www.worldhistory.org/review/327/athens-after-empire-a-history-from-alexander-the-g/
Really disagree with the claim that Rome was this decentralized prior to Diocletian... I recommend this article on the Rome vs China comparison https://web.archive.org/web/20220129211536/https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/110702.pdf
I know Scheidel's work.
In his more recent work (like Escape from Rome form 2019) he admits that Rome's empire was decentralized and was unlike Ancient Chinese states. I took from this book the fact that China was militarily unified 17 times.
To have an idea of how decentralized Rome's empire was, Plutarch said that Roman tax revenues were 85 million denarii per year in the mid 1st century BC, which works out at 12,750 talents of silver per year. For comparison the tax revenues of Egypt alone at the time, a more centralized state, were said to be 12,500 talents per year. Egypt's population is estimated to have been about 10 times smaller than of Rome's empire, so the per capita tax revenues that Rome extracted from her empire were 10 times smaller than Egypt's.
Compared to a wealthy city-state Roman tax revenues were a joke: consider that Athenian tax revenues in ca. 300 BC were estimated at 1,200 talents of silver, equivaled to about 9-10% of Roman tax revenues 250 years later and Athens had a population equivalent to 0.3 to 0.4% of Rome's empire. So, its tax revenues per capita were around 30 times higher.
During the Early Roman Empire, the city of Athens still functioned as an independent city-state and it continued to have its own constitution and citizenship. They even had mandatory military service for 18-year-olds (even though they haven't fought a war in centuries). This book is a good survey of Athenian history under Roman hegemony: https://www.worldhistory.org/review/327/athens-after-empire-a-history-from-alexander-the-g/
Thanks for the explanation!